Wage garnishments and collections

I spent my whole weekend just sitting here, thinking about you and that post you made 🤣

It honestly makes total sense.

First, John Clark6 lays out his position, then hollowmason64 weighs in. Then, surprisingly, John Clark6 ends up agreeing with hollowmason64, only for hollowmason64 to circle back and adopt John Clark6's original take at the very end. It’s a total paradox. 🤣

Honestly, both sides make sense to me. 😁

My bad... I totally meant to say I was agreeing with myself rather than with KISS... everything makes sense now! 🙂

On a completely different note... hollowmason64 has 43,000 posts... Good grief... maybe just take a break from the forums for a bit? 🙂

Honestly, I’d love to see you stuck in a cast and on crutches for months on end 🙂

You could have spent some of that time actually reading a book instead of just typing away on a keyboard :P

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:Hey everyone,

So, if a long-standing debt is being collected through the Federal Reserve, does that 10-year statute of limitations start running from the moment the promissory note is submitted, or does the fact that they're actively withholding funds affect that clock?

In other words, to prevent the debt from expiring (that 10-year mark), do you need to change the method of collection even if the Federal Reserve is already collecting, just because those 10 years are about to run out?

I'm a bit stuck on that last sentence in this link here:

"There is no statute of limitations for account freezing procedures carried out by the Federal Reserve."

Let’s look at how this actually works. Suppose the District Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court all uphold a payment order issued by the Court or a Notary Public—even if those higher courts just use boilerplate language to claim the case doesn't meet the necessary criteria. Once that District Court confirms the order and sends it over to the Federal Reserve, the process is set. The Federal Reserve doesn't check for the statute of limitations on its own initiative. They’ll just keep executing the order as long as money keeps hitting that frozen account. And here's the kicker: from what I've read, the law is vague on whether it applies to forced payments or not, but every single time a deposit hits the account, that ten-year statute of limitations starts running all over again. It just keeps looping like that until the entire order is paid in full.
Let’s look at the second payment order that hit the collection queue a day later. Under Section 233 of the San Diego Zoo enforcement guidelines, claims established by a court decision or a notary public have a 10-year statute of limitations. But here’s the catch: the enforcement act only allows for an objection once the enforcement order has actually been served. Once it’s sent for collection—unless we’re talking about some rare exceptions—wasting time objecting to the statute of limitations is just pointless.
In my view, you have to file a private lawsuit against the creditor in court to get that enforcement order tossed based on the statute of limitations. I honestly can't think of any other legal remedy. The enforcement act doesn't even define one—unless you count the stay of execution, but that still ignores the statute of limitations anyway. And does it even make sense? The court already handed down a decision on the merits of the case.

Logic says this whole attempt to dodge debt is completely pointless. Why bother? We already have personal bankruptcy laws that provide a way out in no less than one year, but no more than five. What’s the point of all this extra drama?
Stop the nonsense.$267 "Enough to live on"? That’s just nonsense coming from creditors. They know perfectly well they aren't getting paid during that window. Why? Because under Article 63, Section 2, those living expenses are strictly tied to the amount protected from enforcement. It's basic math.

What’s the move when you've got a wife and kids? You get divorced, set child support at 50% of your paycheck, and that's that. Period. Since when does some judge have the authority to interfere with that? Child support shouldn't even be part of the bankruptcy estate. That means from a salary of... $1667 It stays. $833 Which court is supposed to prioritize payments for housing, utilities, food, and drinks before anything leftover goes to the creditor? That’s the rule. Period. 😉

I've got a question if anyone knows
My kids are supposed to receive child support from their father, which comes from overseas. I have a protected account set up, but since the payment should hit in a few days, the Federal Reserve won't protect this specific foreign currency account yet because I don't have the final court order in hand. They say it might be delayed. Is there any way, or any specific method, to get this child support money protected?

Nicholas Kelly6 said:I've got a question if anyone knows
My kids are supposed to receive child support from their father, which comes from overseas. I have a protected account set up, but since the payment should hit in a few days, the Federal Reserve won't protect this specific foreign currency account yet because I don't have the final court order in hand. They say it might be delayed. Is there any way, or any specific method, to get this child support money protected?

It sounds like you're dealing with an ex-husband working abroad. So we aren't talking about a government benefit here, but actual alimony/child support. Banks only unlock protected accounts when the Federal Reserve orders them to, and legally, you have to produce the court order proving the amount.

If you don't have the paperwork ready, just open a foreign currency account at a local branch under the child's name and send those details to the payer so they can wire the money directly there. You can still access the cash since it isn't a locked savings bond. My nephew gets his survivor benefits sent to a checking account that my sister manages at a local credit union without any issues. Once you get your legal papers sorted and the protected account is set, you can just close the temporary one.

So, the local city administration just froze my bank account over some $67 debt, and honestly, I’m feeling pretty blindsided by the whole thing... What really burns me is that I never even received a single warning notice before they moved to freeze everything; either they never sent it, or it just vanished into thin air somewhere along the way. It’s not like I was dodging them—the second I get any hint of an enforcement action, I settle my bills immediately, and this is just regarding a municipal development fee. I can't help but wonder if there is actually anything I can do here besides just biting the bullet and paying both the original amount and all these ridiculous enforcement costs... it feels so incredibly unfair, almost absurd, at this point...

Is PBS considered a legal entity with public authority?
If they are, could a payment order issued by PBS for an unpaid fee—which would count as an enforcement instrument (there’s actually a proposal to change the laws to allow this)—extend the statute of limitations from one year to ten? My thinking is if they have that power, the payment order would qualify as a "decision from another competent authority" under section 233 of the enforcement act, pushing the statute of limitations to 10 years instead of just 1.

Bryan Fowler42 said:Is PBS considered a legal entity with public authority?
If they are, could a payment order issued by PBS for an unpaid fee—which would count as an enforcement instrument (there’s actually a proposal to change the laws to allow this)—extend the statute of limitations from one year to ten? My thinking is if they have that power, the payment order would qualify as a "decision from another competent authority" under section 233 of the enforcement act, pushing the statute of limitations to 10 years instead of just 1.

Laws shouldn't contradict each other. In this country, they do. Take the enforcement act, for example. It defines protected and unprotected portions of a salary. Then you look at the tax code, which defines the protected amount, and it's in total contradiction with the enforcement act.
In this specific scenario, such a decision would be in direct conflict with article 232, paragraph 2 of that same law, which explicitly defines the statute of limitations for the radio and TV receiver tax.

Look, I get it—it seems totally contradictory... but I’m trying to wrap my head around how this actually works. Is PBS really considered a legal entity with public authority? And if so, would their payment orders count as an enforcement instrument subject to a 10-year statute of limitations?

Bryan Fowler42 said:Look, I get it—it seems totally contradictory... but I’m trying to wrap my head around how this actually works. Is PBS really considered a legal entity with public authority? And if so, would their payment orders count as an enforcement instrument subject to a 10-year statute of limitations?

Are you just bored and looking for a little friendly debate?

John Clark6 said:Are you just bored and looking for a little friendly debate?

What are you even talking about? 😁
I asked a simple question. What argument? What nonsense are you on about?

I think you're on the right track, Bryan Fowler42, regarding the statute of limitations...

Bryan Fowler42 said:Look, I get it—it seems totally contradictory... but I’m trying to wrap my head around how this actually works. Is PBS really considered a legal entity with public authority? And if so, would their payment orders count as an enforcement instrument subject to a 10-year statute of limitations?

Actually, even now, the statute of limitations is ten years once an enforcement order is issued. The only catch is that the proposal for enforcement has to be submitted within one year of the debt becoming due.

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:First, John Clark6 lays out his position, then hollowmason64 weighs in. Then, surprisingly, John Clark6 ends up agreeing with hollowmason64, only for hollowmason64 to circle back and adopt John Clark6's original take at the very end. It’s a total paradox. 🤣

Honestly, both sides make sense to me. 😁

The statute of limitations tolling continues as long as the promissory note is registered with the Federal Reserve, because an enforcement proceeding is technically active during that entire window. The clock only starts ticking again once that enforcement proceeding is officially suspended. Amen.

Hmm, I actually hadn't considered that perspective... does that imply the same logic applies to an enforcement proposal currently sitting with the Federal Reserve waiting to be collected?

John Clark6 said:Hmm, I actually hadn't considered that perspective... does that imply the same logic applies to an enforcement proposal currently sitting with the Federal Reserve waiting to be collected?

Of course it does. All that matters is that the proposal was filed. Once it's submitted, the statute of limitations tolling kicks in immediately.

Bryan Fowler42 said:Of course it does. All that matters is that the proposal was filed. Once it's submitted, the statute of limitations tolling kicks in immediately.

Spot on.